The Ocean at the End of the Lane
discussion
Where did Mr. Gaiman go wrong in The Ocean at the End of the Lane
You hated Stardust? Please elucidate. Ocean is probably his best novel yet.
Except for the authors preferred text of Neverwhere.
I preferred Neverwhere, but I really enjoyed The Ocean at the End of the Lane. What did you dislike about it Ana??
You seem to have fallen into the classic trap of criticizing a creative endeavor because it wasn't what you wanted it to be. The Ocean at the End of the Lane certainly wasn't American Gods, Anansi Boys, or Neverwhere. It was instead the novel that Gaiman choose to write.
Here's the problem I had with the novel: The Hempstocks serve as a Deux Ex Machina that immediately robs the book of any real sense of danger. They are presented as so powerful that the current state of events involving the 'flea' Ursula doesn't even faze them, so you just know that the unnamed protagonist will remain unscathed as long as he has the Hempstocks. About halfway through the book I realized this, and the story became a sentimental yawn.Here's how Gaiman could have improved the novel, to make it more palatable (and I am not taking stabs at anyone who liked the novel here):
1. The main character should have been less of a passive victim throughout the story - even his eventual 'sacrifice' to save reality only resulted in Grandma Hempstock showing up and banishing the hunger birds easily (which she could have done before she got 'tired.') It would have been much better if he had figured out a way to beat Ursula Monkton on his own, rather than having to rely on Lettie all the time.
2. So the hunger birds, the so-called universal 'cleaners' can also just break the rules anytime they want and just decide to 'eat' reality?? Then what was stopping them from breaking the circle of stones that protected the protagonist? They're like unreliable vacuum cleaners that not only suck up dust but also break your furniture whenever they feel like it. Makes NO sense. Some careful plotting was needed here, but Gaiman fudged it.
3. Why did Lettie latch onto the protagonist the way she did? We know why HE wanted a friend (bullied and an outcast at school) but what was HER motivation? It would have been better if Gaiman had developed Lettie's character more and shown some emotion from her. Even her sacrifice at the end to save the boy's life rang hollow, because she's so powerful that she treats the carrion birds with disdain. It would have been better if Gaiman made both of them a little older, and introduced a romantic aspect.
So, I guess I'm with Ana on this one. The novel could have been better. MUCH better. It was also way too short. At the end I felt as if I wanted more. And I have been waiting years for a new Gaiman novel. So yeah, this one hurts
I'm with the critics. I know Gaiman writes for a range of age groups. American Gods for Adults, Coraline for kids. This one did a nice job of getting me in, and as always, his style is charming. However, the world was not as well developed as his other worlds and over all it just wasn't as creepy, dangerous or intriguing... I put it between Coraline and the Graveyard Book in target audience, though it wasn't as good as either. I suppose it also ends up like American Gods, great idea, too long. The Ocean at the End of the Lane was a great idea, too short.
Ana wrote: "I am floored by the number of people jumping on the bandwagon to praise this book. Please, lets help Mr. Gaiman out. Lets give him ideas on ways, this pricey novella posing as a novel, can be made..."I'm a little offended that you think the only reason to like this novel is from "jumping on the bandwagon" and not because a reader found the novel enjoyable and entertaining. Your post smacks of "literary snobbishness" and basically says that fans of this book are incapable of properly evaluating a novel. You would have gotten farther with your point by listing the novel's flaws and your evidence/opinion of these flaws. Reader bashing gets people no where. We are all, obviously, lovers of reading, so no need to attack anyone's intelligence.
As for the topic at hand, this is not Gaiman's best work (I think American Gods, Anansi Boys, and The Graveyard Book are his best), but I still enjoyed reading every page. It should have been longer to flesh out some of the points that seemed to have been glossed over.
Well said! It's extremely patronising to be called a bandwagon jumper just because you like something. If you seriously think you're good enough to give writing advice to Mr Gaiman then perhaps you should be publishing your own best seller!
Hmm. You want a professional assessment? If I had to put my finger on the flaw in the work, it is that the boy is not very proactive. In almost every situation he is the acted-upon, not the actor. All the agency lies with the Hempstocks, or the adults, or whoever. This is an inevitable flaw of a youthful protagonist (and this is the reason why so very many books with child protagonists lose the parents in one way or another, so that the kids can have agency). It is also not terribly satisfactory that he has done this before. It is suggested that he has returned to the Hempstocks over and over again. This immediately makes THIS visit less important; why are we hearing about it rather than any of the other ones?
This says to me that the fix is in the ending. It needed to end in a slightly different way -- perhaps with the return of Letty at last. However, as others have pointed out, this is not a long work, and not a major one. Clearly Gaiman is not going to redo it; he should go on and write something else.
I liked the book. Not as much as Neverwhere or Coraline or Anansi Boys, but more than American Gods and Stardust, although all are great reads. I enjoyed entering the world of the Hempstocks. Lettie was a great character. I love disappearing into a Gaiman world.
So...you wanted a less passive, more pro-active character, eh? You wanted a romance? You wanted a happy ending...? Hmmmm...may I recommend The Hunger Games or Divergent to these dissatisfied readers, perhaps? I'm not sure why you picked up a Gaiman novel in the first place if you weren't ready for something a little more ambiguous, ethereal and complex than the standard YA dreck that so many GoodReaders claim to be enjoying these days.You've forgotten already what it was like to be a child, to be lost in the world and at the mercy of unfair forces all around you? You've not experienced personal loss or trauma, and you haven't struggled to come to terms with this past pain and maybe finally realized that you'll never really be able to do so? Memory hasn't ever launched a sneak attack on you? You haven't longed for the magic of fairy tales while at the same time mourned the sad diminished real world you live in? Fortunately for us as readers, Neil Gaiman seems to have a pretty good handle on these very human responses.
If you like a sentimental romp through Neil Gaiman's past, then I guess you're right: This novel is just the right fit for you. If you can easily slip into the mind of the protagonist because of shared experiences, great. Me? I did not have much in common with the unnamed narrator, so I was fully expecting Neil's writing to TAKE ME INTO HIS MIND, make me feel what he's going through, get me to care about what happens to him in the novel. The only scene that did this was when his father tried to drown him in the bathtub. Luckily, this never happened to me, but the writing here was so fraught and descriptive and filled with menace that he made me experience it. Brilliantly written scene. But where was this type of writing in the rest of the novel? Ultimately this story smacks of sentimentality and a MAJOR plot hole: why didn't Grandma Hempstock just show up and clean up the entire mess before things went South? You know, when the kid was trapped by the Hunger Birds? She could have avoided all this, but then we wouldn't have this half-hearted attempt at a novel.By the way, I am a BIG Gaiman fan, but even our favorite writers need to be subjected to critique.
This is the first Neil Gaiman book I've read. I thought it was fantastic. So am I a bandwagoner because I saw some positive reviews and gave the book a read? Ridiculous. Mr. Gaiman can keep writing like Mr. Gaiman. You can't please everyone, nor should you try.
I've only started reading Gaiman this year (finished both American Gods and Ocean), and I don't understand what all the fuss is about him as an author. He incorporates some brilliant imagery into his prose, but the characters, dialogue, and plot advancement in both books is a total mess.American Gods meandered for far too long and wore out it's welcome well before there was any resolution. Ocean either needed to be longer and more fleshed out, or shorter and marketed as a quick short story. Instead, it was a tweener and suffered for it.
You're good, Keshena! I was responding back to HJ and Brenda, and maybe Ana...By the way, if you're interested in Ocean, you might want to take a look at the short piece "The Flints of Memory Lane" collected in Fragile Things; it kind of feels like Gaiman's first stab at writing about the some of the things that influenced his writing Ocean.
I thought it was one of the best autobiographies I had read in a very long time. ;)I do feel that it was more of a novella than a full length novel, and as such should probably have been priced a little lower, but it's not like people balking at the price couldn't have just waited for it to hit the cheap bins at B&N or just gone to their *gasp* local library.
There was something special about listening to the audio book- his voice is so mesmerizing that I was enchanted. I don't know how I would feel about it in print. I always listen to his books in audio because of his voice. I am always impressed by his creativity and unique artistry.
Keshena wrote: "If the Hempstocks were a deus ex machina Lettie wouldn't very well have died...or whatever it is she did. I immensely enjoyed TOatEotL, in my opinion it is his second best work, Stardust being my a..."I like your response. I am a fan and agree that his range is amazing. Even a Gaiman work that doesn't set new standards for me is still Gaiman - enjoyable and clever.
The very best Gaiman IMO is his SANDMAN work, which is readily available in trade paper format and has won a bajillion awards. However you really do have to enjoy graphic novels. CORALINE is also very good -- and the movie version is one of those rare films that does the book justice.
Ana wrote: "I am floored by the number of people jumping on the bandwagon to praise this book. Please, lets help Mr. Gaiman out. Lets give him ideas on ways, this pricey novella posing as a novel, can be made..."It's highly presumptuous of you to claim that anything you or anyone else says in this forum will help Neil Gaiman in terms of ideas. As for the standards - those are your own, not universal. He wrote what he fully intended to write, not what he necessarily believed you as an individual wanted to read.
And I really don't understand the apparent fundamental need to compare this book to American Gods.
I've come to view Neil Gaiman's writing as being similar to free verse poetry. He just doesn't generally follow conventional writing rules usually, and I'm perfectly fine with that. On the other hand, I can see why that exasperates other people.
i think the problem with any new Gaiman work is the sheer burden of expectations it carries right from its inception. we love his work and absolutely adore his style of writing , which is not "adult" or "young adult" or "children".. its just good writing. But having said that, Neverwhere is different from Coraline which is different from American Gods and Sandman is well... just Sandman. i expected something that would make me feel the way all these great works made me feel and the truth is this book didnt achieve that. but then when you have finished the book and gone back to the drudgery of real life, Gaiman's words do linger on.. like the aftertaste of a great wine and you realize that this book is also like all of his previous works, different and essentially "Gaiman". like someone posted elsewhere.. this is not the book i wanted to read, but the one gaiman wanted to read.... i will still be in line to buy his next work ...
I gave the book a high rating because it shows how Gaiman has developed as a writer over the years. We can't expect the same-old, same-old from him. We need to see progress. He can't put out repeated versions of Neverwhere and Stardust over and over again. Then he would be a pulp writer, likened to the ranks of Jackie Collins and and Danielle Steele who write books worthy of my fireplace. Like it or not, authors need to take risks and offer something different. Gaiman takes risks and wins!
This book is a classic! The story is just a 'Pond', the real 'Ocean' is visible to those who want to see it. This is full of puns; understanding the depth of its quotes may lead you to decipher the story in different dimensions. It's not a short novel if you read it carefully. Why? Because the fantasy was just a 'pond', and the illusions behind the 'realistic' fantasy incidents are real. Just like a colorful mess of a painting on top of a black and white simplified painting. This somehow reminded me of 'Anansi Boys'.
I hated this book. There are so many things I hated about it that my review was extremely long.
I really want to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion so far, of Mr. Gaiman's latest book. I started this discussion initially, as a result of being disappointed in this book. The request I made for ways Mr. Gaiman can improve his book was done partly in jest. However,I love the passionate, intelligent and thoughtful posts for and against the way in which the book was written. Now, my response to a couple of post. Amy, Keshena and Hilary...REALLY?. Apparently, the three of you are "offended" by my bandwagon comment and has branded me a literary snob. Wow! those are some serious leaps of logic. I hope you are all aware that whether I like Mr. Gaiman's book or not, he still gets paid. So please get off the cross we need the wood LOL. Also the post that requested I write my own book,if I did not like Mr. Gaiman's. I just want to bring to your attention the fact that there is no law in the United States which requires the production of your own book, should you express a negative opinion of another writers work LOL. But thank you for thinking of me.
What I love about some of Mr. Gaiman's earlier books, is how the reader is pulled under the sea of Mr. Gaimans's logic and fully realized world. Filled with characters you can see in your minds eye and have feelings about. This was completely lacking this latest book. When I think back to my experience of the boy's family they are flat and featureless. Which made it hard to care about what happens to them. There were so many holes and dead ends in the plot that I needed to backtrack to figure out, even within the logic of the book, where he was heading.
I totally agree with the post by Brenda and HJ. I really could not have assessed the book better.
Laurel wrote: "There was something special about listening to the audio book- his voice is so mesmerizing that I was enchanted. I don't know how I would feel about it in print. I always listen to his books in a..."I'm a 50% audio, 50% paper reader of Gaiman and find him enjoyable either way! I read Coraline in both audio and print. I think it was scarier in audio!
I heard the first few chapters as a sample audio, didn't care for it. But I saw Gaiman in person, listened to him read the same chaps, bought the book and gave it a chance. The story grew on me as it got creepier and creepier. I thought it was touching and sad. Didn't like it as much as The Graveyard Book, but enough to want to read more Gaiman in the future.
Before anything else I would like to say that anyone can like or dislike whatever they fancy, as much as I do. It's just that I've read the whole discussion and I have heard Mr. Gaiman talk about the book and read from it just a couple of days ago, and something he said shone some light on why this book is so different from his previous works (at least for me). He said he usually plans out what he is going to write, or at least he has an idea of it, but with The Ocean at the End of the Lane,it was more "accidental" since he started to write it as a short story (that evolved into a novella, then at last into a novel) for his wife who doesn't enjoy the fantastic element as much as plenty of us do, but quite likes feelings. Maybe that gave life to yet another side to his writing. I have read it and enjoyed it, in different ways from previous works, but I do agree with all the people highlighting the young age of the protagonist when replying to the question about his being pro-active. I'd happily jump on the bandwagon and even have a little dance, everyone's got right to their opinions after all.
I did not like this book immediately, but ended liking it A Lot.Now, here is why I think this book may be so divisive: it's really subtle.
If you read it fast, it's just another fairy tale where a kid encounters a magical family living next door, some monsters appear and do bad things and then the fairies beat them.
But if you look closely, there are some differences that make it way heavier than that: [spoiler danger] The kid's pet dies and never returns. His father almost drowns him. And later he is told that that wasn't just the monster's powers.
And I loved that subtlety. It's not my favourite of Gaiman's, but I really enjoyed it and left me thinking about it for a while. That's all I expect from any book.
This novel was just so underwhelming. It felt rushed, the writing was sub-par, the narrative stumbling at times. The feel I got reading TOATEOTL is that Gaiman had a contract to fulfil, let it get too close to the deadline, then just basically said, "Here, it's good enough as it is." It felt so uninspired. It was barely spruced-up YA, and not even exceptional YA at that, just average, quick-buck YA. I was very disappointed, especially seeing as Gaiman had made it sound as if it would be a return to form, and actual adult fiction, which it decidedly was not. There was no spark. I didn't care about the characters because he didn't make me. In failing to do so, he failed to do his job as a writer. It ended and I immediately moved on. He left me with nothing to think about, nothing to care about.
I think people are reading too much into something that's not there. I didn't find any 'subtlety,' I just found lazy writing and flat, bland characters half-heartedly ripped from his previous works and given new names (and slightly different motives, though there really were no clear motives at any point in this 'novel'). For a guy who has won practically every award there is to win for writing fiction, the novel was something of a joke. Just not a very good one.
And before someone tells me I have a personal vendetta against Gaiman, look at my ratings for his other works. Several are among my favourite novels, and I enjoy them annually. I just don't settle for tripe, no matter who dishes it out.
Jessie, the first paragraph of your comment was spot on.And you are also right that"people are reading to much into something that's not there".Thanks again to everyone for such intelligent discussion.
Looks to me as if a lot of the haters here have just failed to understand what the book is about, why Gaiman wrote it, and what it was meant to achieve. That's not an attack. My background happens to be such that I think I did get it (and listening to Gaiman talk about the book confirmed that). And I think it's superb. Your mileage may vary.
This is the first Gaiman novel I've finished, so I don't have a lot to compare it to nor did I have expectations going into it. With that being said, I really really enjoyed this book. I thought it was subtle yet powerful, and it reminded me of my own childhood and the way I used to see the world, which can be dark and confusing place for a lonely kid. I don't really consider this a fairy tale or really even a fantasy. I feel like it's more of an allegory for growing up, making sense of the world and dealing with the darkness and the light you find there.
I loved Ocean. I loved the world of the Hempstocks' farm, I loved the lyrical and graceful writing. However I will say that I did not feel as threatened by Ursula as I was by, for example, Mr. Wednesday or the Man Jack or Croup and Vandemar. Maybe that was a personal thing for me, or perhaps it was Gaiman's writing. I did find Ocean less colorful than his other work - but it was also meant to tell a different kind of story. It was reflective, rather than adventurous like Neverwhere or American Gods.I don't think Ocean was Gaiman's strongest, but I don't think it was terrible. As I said, I didn't feel very threatened by Ursula, and that would be my main criticism of it, but at the same time I wonder if that could be purposeful. The story as a whole was a little muted, a little bit distant, and to me that enhanced the feeling of memory. Perhaps the antagonist I'm imagining doesn't belong in Ocean. Perhaps it has its place in a different story, one that is more like American Gods, a little more action-dependent, a little more violent, and not so much about the eerie, haunting impressions of childhood.
Brenda wrote: "Hmm. You want a professional assessment? If I had to put my finger on the flaw in the work, it is that the boy is not very proactive. In almost every situation he is the acted-upon, not the actor. ..."I would say that the reason THIS particular visit to the Hempstocks' farm is so important is the death of the narrator's mother. One thing I loved about this book was its presentation of women, and the death of the most present woman in our narrator's life is, I think, a perfect jumping off point into this story featuring at least three (four if you count Ursula, though I wasn't sure her true, monster form had a gender) formidable female powers.
Why do you think the funeral is for the mother? Is there any textual evidence of that? I thought it was his father. Maybe that's just us projecting our gender roles (I assume our profiles are accurate), but I could not find specific proof of either parent, and I thought the death of his father would make more sense in the story since it would leave so much of the past pain unresolved in the narrator's life and occasion the visit to the Hempstock farm.But...tell me why you think it's the mother.
Yes, I thought it was the father too.
Tim wrote: "Looks to me as if a lot of the haters here have just failed to understand what the book is about, why Gaiman wrote it, and what it was meant to achieve. That's not an attack. My background happe..."
I would concur with your view.
I had high expectations from Gaiman's reputation and how much I loved "The Graveyard Book," so in my case that was most likely a big factor. Aside from that, it felt like a first draft, and if I were the editor, I would have suggested giving the main character more of a personality, developing the characters, and adding suspense - because those were the three biggest issues I had with this book. Then again, there are plenty of folks who enjoyed this book, so it seems likely I wasn't the right audience for this one, because we all have different preferences and nobody should tell folks what they should or shouldn't like.
Kristine wrote: "This is the first Gaiman novel I've finished, so I don't have a lot to compare it to nor did I have expectations going into it. With that being said, I really really enjoyed this book. I thought it..."Like Kristine this was my first novel by Neil Gaiman. I didn't know that he has written many genre, unknowingly I have watched episodes of Dr Who and Babylon 5 written by him (yes they are some of my favourite episodes).
I will definitely search out other works and hope I enjoy them as much as I enjoyed The Ocean at the End of the Lane.
I suspect that a reader who was Big Man On Campus all his childhood, and maybe a bit of a bully, wouldn't get this book at all. Or a reader who had 30 people at her seventh birthday party, and was always picked first for sports. Or a person who didn't read and read and read when young. Maybe you need to already be comfortable with things that Don't Belong In Our World. But if you were anything like the narrator, you'll get it.
Tim wrote: "I suspect that a reader who was Big Man On Campus all his childhood, and maybe a bit of a bully, wouldn't get this book at all. Or a reader who had 30 people at her seventh birthday party, and was..."I was a child who spent a lot of time out of school (preventative medicine for asthma is the best thing since sliced bread in my book), I was never picked for sports teams and consequently spent a lot of time reading. I get totally why the narrator is like what he is - as a child "things happened around me" too.
However I am hoping for 30 or more people at my seventy birthday since I only had family at my seventh. LOL
Tim wrote: "I suspect that a reader who was Big Man On Campus all his childhood, and maybe a bit of a bully, wouldn't get this book at all. Or a reader who had 30 people at her seventh birthday party, and was..."I disagree entirely. I was a very strange child, and teenager. I spent more time in books and music than in "reality," and I had few friends. I always felt misunderstood, and as if I didn't belong. I was also bullied a fair bit for being different.
See, the one thing that bothers me is when people claim that, because you do not like something, you don't "get it." To me, that is just a generic blanket statement. I "get" a lot of things, and dislike them very much. I dislike the book for the reasons stated, not because I was popular (I wasn't), or because I had lots of friends (I didn't), or because I was Big Man On Campus (guess what? I wasn't) or because I was a bully (unless you count bullying yourself with thoughts?). Just because someone disagrees with your opinion of things does not mean that they don't "get" the subject at hand, or the content. Literature is subjective. I'm not a "hater" as you first claimed (another go-to claim that people use when others disagree with them that has always bothered me, as it seems like a huge cop-out for the fact that people are different, and as such, their opinions differ--it also makes it seem as if you can't accept that people will disagree with you).
In fact, since I can gather from the comments you post that you were a very different child, I'm a bit surprised that you can't understand that people's opinions will differ, as you yourself must have had many different viewpoints at younger ages, and today as well. It seems like the Big Man On Campus thing to say, that if someone doesn't like something you do, they just don't "get it," they're a "hater," not that people are different, in many ways, and as such, they will like or dislike different things.
I didn't fail to understand what the book was about; it is my opinion that Gaiman failed in his execution.
Jesse, you're mostly right. Also, I allowed categories to overlap, and omitted one. I didn't intend to count you among the haters, of whom there aren't many; however, some people here seem to have gone beyond merely disliking the book. I didn't mean to suggest that everyone who didn't like the book didn't get it, only that some didn't. But I certainly overstepped in suggesting that a, how to put this, apparently strong-successful-happy child would not understand the book as easily. Perhaps I could have said "identify with the narrator" which is a very different thing.
Tim wrote: "I suspect that a reader who was Big Man On Campus all his childhood, and maybe a bit of a bully, wouldn't get this book at all. Or a reader who had 30 people at her seventh birthday party, and was...Jessie wrote:"I didn't fail to understand what the book was about; it is my opinion that Gaiman failed in his execution.
Thank you Jessie, your response to Tim was tasteful and on point. I too was not a member of the "in crowd" and spent my youth reading and now my middle age doing the same thing. Like you I did not like Gaiman's book because of its "execution" not because I lack the ability to comprehend this book.
Loved this book. Absolutely loved it. And it was the length that a adult fairy tale should be. American Gods and much else of Gaiman's has been way, way too verbose for the subject matter and genre. If you hate this book, you hate it. No need to protest so much.
Same as for being delighted by it. As I was.
I'm closer to 66 years old than 65, and it is a timeless kind of tale. Filled with human cognition of what we "know" and how we perceive it at different ages. Believe me, there are lots of people getting on who want to explore where Lettie has traipsed to Australia.
Magic. Imagination. Connection. Not just "feelings" and "empathy" but double dare you connection.
And I think I have read all of Gaiman's EXCEPT Stardust. I did not enjoy any as much as I did this. Read it in one go.
Antonia wrote: "I gave the book a high rating because it shows how Gaiman has developed as a writer over the years. We can't expect the same-old, same-old from him. We need to see progress. He can't put out repe..."I completely agree.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Ocean at the End of the Lane (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Ocean at the End of the Lane (other topics)The Ocean at the End of the Lane (other topics)
This discussion is not for those blinded by the light of Mr. Gaiman's previous work. This for the rest of us who feel robbed.
Quickly, type away. As we speak unsuspecting readers are buying this book in its present form.